Compare And Contrast Locke And Hobbes Social Contract

Improved Essays
Social Contract In order to govern a society, the established government needs a certain amount of control and power over the citizens. Mitchell defines this social contract as, “social contract an agreement among citizens or between the ruler and the ruled that defines the rights and duties of each party.” Locke views humans as benign in nature, who would passively live out their lives without interfering with their neighbors. Hobbes believes that humans are innately aggressive and must be controlled and regulated by a powerful central entity to ensure everyone coexists and lives peacefully. They both agree that social contracts are necessary, but vary their reasoning’s on why. We agree to become party of a society, and contribute to ensure the success of that society. In return, we would receive some necessities and protection by that society. The ruler of the society, most of the time a Government, can easily become an unstoppable entity that can continuously empower itself with new rules and regulations to manipulate how the society functions. This ruler also needs enough strength to withstand and persevere through trials and tribulations it faces, but determining the right amount of power is complicated. Hobbes and Locke had seen different sides of human beings, but it is hard to say which one is …show more content…
I believe basic rights starts with sustenance, water, and housing. The basic necessities, nothing too lavish or extraordinary, but enough to weather tough times that people tend to encounter. We should take care of our own, because our power comes from this basic united mentality. Outside of basic necessities I believe that people should have the right to live life in any way they want, with only 1 restriction, to not interfere with anyone else’s right. This is where it becomes complicated and ideas begin to clash, but it happens every

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    The social contract, which is agreed upon by the majority of the citizens is based on the general will of the people, that aims for the common good of each individual in the state. It aims at structuring the state, so that people can live in a civilized society as well as pleasing each individual. However it also intends to create rules and laws, which construct a safe and secure environment for the citizens of the said state. Thus it is based on laws rather than power. Being a part of this contract one has to give up ‘the physical freedom’ that is to do any thing one pleases to do, yet one gains the ‘civil freedom’ of acting rationally and morally.…

    • 859 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The society has to find ways to keep their freedoms while also becoming a community to protect their freedoms. Rousseau’s idea was to create a true democracy in which the rules and regulations of the society were chose by the majority and general will of the people. Those who disagreed were forced to follow the general will and if they did not want to they could leave the state. The government would be “entrusted with administering the general will” of the public in order to keep everyone on the same page (Costly). He favored a direct democracy where the people would be heard directly by the government instead of through elected officials.…

    • 1276 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Government plays a very crucial role in the concept of freedom as government’s have power over society. Kant believes in a central form of government that can allow individuals to pursue to interests. In other words, Kant feels that government is necessary to ensure that others do not interfere with one’s interests and chance of pursuing then. Kant states, “At the end which is a duty in itself in such external relationships, and which is indeed the highest formal condition of all other external duties is the right of men under coercive public laws by which each can be given what is due to him and secured against attack from any others.” (Kant 174) Kant is explaining that men have the right to be protected from others while attaining the freedom that they deserve. Mill takes a different stance on this because he believes that to achieve true freedom, the government should only intervene when one’s freedom poses harm to others.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Argument #2 Social Contract Social contracts are an individual 's moral and ethical political obligations, which are dependent upon a contract or agreement. It addresses questions of the origin of the society, and the legitimacy of the authority the state holds over an individual. For Locke, since the state of nature is a state of liberty where people recognize the presence of the Law of Nature and, therefore, do not harm one another, the state of war differs from the state of nature. Property is essential in Locke 's argument for civil government and the contract that establishes it. This is because the reason human beings abandon the state of nature is to ensure greater protection of their property, not only concerning material goods, but also their bodies.…

    • 1081 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Also individual are supposed to get support from the majority, or else they do not stand a chance against. According to John Locke account, citizen of the state is only permitted to revolt against their government by breach of contract. John Locke argues that sovereign contracts with their citizens to protect their property rights and maintain peace. It allows the government to have obligations that may limit their power. For instances: the government are not allowed to…

    • 1091 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Meng Tzu Case Study

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Civil power is used to force everyone to follow what they have agreed to in terms of the “social contract” to protect us from ourselves. It is necessary to make sure that an individual is too afraid of the punishment to try and gain dominance over another so the peace can be…

    • 716 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Mill focuses on the concept of a clear distinction between when the authority of society can limit individuality and when there can be “sovereignty of the individual over himself”; however, he also argues the point that control should be given whenever society and the individual have an interest in a particular part of human life (82). Mill rejects the notion of a social contract, which Locke argues for, but due to the protections provided by society, the citizens owe a return for these benefits. He defines the harm principle by each individual having the right to act however they please, as long as it does not affect the person undertaking the action. Society cannot intervene, even if the act the person is committing causes harm to them. Each…

    • 1426 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Their power is limited to making collective decisions for the best of society. Individuals in society should be responsible for electing the head as a democracy and absolute power should not be given to one or a few individuals. Individuals should be able to own their own property and make the choices they want as long as they follow as set of regulations that apply equally to society and the rule of law exists. I think absolutism is flawed as individuals in society do not own their own property and the sovereign has the ability to take control of what individuals have earned. I agree with John Locke’s ideas about ownership and the protection of one’s property being sacrosanct as individuals have worked hard to earn what they have and they should have full responsibility of what theirs.…

    • 1491 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes Vs Rousseau Essay

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages

    With Rousseau believes that these goals can only be realized with the assumption of a great leader into the seat of power. With a great leader laws can be established and thus, enforcement of laws is not a restriction on individual liberty: the individual, as a citizen, explicitly agreed to be constrained if, as a private individual, he did not respect his own will as formulated in the general will. Because laws represent the restraints of civil freedom, they represent the leap made from humans in the state of nature into civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force, and therefore Rousseau believed that the laws that govern a people helped to mold their…

    • 858 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Part IV: Strengthening Thrasymachus’ view In order to better help Thrasymachus, the best possible outcome will be to reconstruct his argument. The first claim will be that all people follow the laws set forth, regardless if such rules are good or bad. Why individuals to this can be explained with basic social contract theory that all people give up their unbounded freedom for protection. The sovereign, who in turn, in order to see to their safety, makes up such laws that help maintain order and protects the people. Offering this to the people they live in the society and follow the sovereigns rules and laws.…

    • 1495 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays

Related Topics